It is interesting that they hardly mention the words homo or heterosexuality at all, but use the term "sexual-brokenness." Usually, this term is used more broadly, and might also include other types of sexual dysfunctions like adultery, porno addiction, and recovery from pedophilia.

29 Responses

With claims such as this one, I usually respond by asking for information. I have often heard the figure hundreds of thousands but never seen any direct evidence that supports that claim. I generally praise ministries that focus on celibacy, as they have a far more practical goal. The “Home and New Life Ministries” site says that heterosexuality is not the end goal but many experience a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. How do they define these? Alan Chambers does not seem to have made that change despite being in an opposite-sex relationship, and other testimonies describe life as a struggle against temptation. Also, how many is “many” by their understanding? A fifth is a far cry from two-thirds.

Once again, homosexuality is not the same thing. At some point, you'll learn to understand the difference between homosexuality and <fill in the sexual deviance of your choice>. That day is not today. One day, you will understand that people who are adulterers or pornography addicts have made decisions. And you'll understand that pedophiles are dangerous for all parts of society, and particularly children. Whereas gays are born gay and pose no threat to anybody, except those Christians who cannot deal with the notion of their God creating gays. But, as usual, that day is not today.

Agreed that addiction is not the same as homosexuality. But how many gays have sexual addiction problems? I mean, we are all familiar with the stories of bathhouses, the reports of multiple partners and anonymous sex, not to mention the s&m gays. I'm not saying most are like this, but a significant minority seem to be. Perhaps a significant subset of gays are addicts. I mean, a siginificant minority of heteros are porno addicts. But again, what I thought was worthy of note was the use of "sexual brokenness."

"Sexual brokenness" is often used by ex-gay ministries, so I am not sure what seems so unusual about the phrase. They usually consider any sexual activity outside of matrimony to be one of many sexual dysfunctions that afflict fallen humanity; in a few cases they go so far as to consider any non-vaginal activity to be wrong, including masturbation. Perhaps I am just used to such terminology from repeated exposure.

Probably. I think non-vaginal sexual intimacy with another person outside of marriage is probably wrong, but inside or marriage, that's up to the couple. Even the vennerable James Dobson has gone on record about masturbation – he neither condones nor condemns it, but rather, does not feel like it's worth trying to prevent, since it's largely harmless.

Agreed that addiction is not the same as heterosexuality. But how many straights have sexual addiction problems? I mean, we are all familiar with the stories of pick-up bars, the reports of multiple partners and anonymous sex, not to mention the s&m straights. I'm not saying most are like this, but a significant minority seem to be. Perhaps a significant subset of straights are addicts, not to mention adulterers, wife-beaters, child-abusers, etc. But, no, let's demonize gays and paint them all with the same brush. Let's declare them a danger to society, marriage, children, etc., and in need of a "cure." You people are a bunch of hypocrits. "Sexual brokenness" is just a term which could fit all of humanity, if you were feeling particularly moralistic, otherwise, it's just human beings being human beings. What is particularly evil here is the attempt by certain heteros to scapegoat gays for all the ills of society. It's you people who need curing.

Seeker, Every so often, we see what's going on behind the curtains: 1. People who sex with multiple partners are not necessarily sex addicts. 2. People who are into S/M aren't necessarily sex addicts. 3. People who watch pornography are not necessarily sex addicts either. Just so we're clear, you do understand that people who enjoy sex in ways/positions/situations different than you aren't necessarily addicts, right? That they can be normal people who just happen to enjoy sex in a manner different than you do? Or do you believe that anybody who isn't having vaginal intercourse in the missionary position is an addict? Because oh my God, I'm addicted!

I didn't say that they were. While all may be engaging in immoral or twisted practices, the main point is that there are all kinds of sexual addicts, and despite complaints to the contrary, gays are much more promiscuous than the already promiscous heteros, so it stands to reason that they may have a bigger problem with sexual addiction. But that's just an assumption. The problem certainly is universal.

Seeker, You're kidding me, right? Because sometimes my girlfriend climbs on top, we're "immoral and twisted?" Are you out of your mind? Do you really intend to declare that anybody who has sex differently from you is somehow "immoral and twisted?" Unbelievable. Your refusal to tolerate those different from you is totally unbelievable. I don't have any problem with you if you and your wife want to have sex in exactly the same way, every single time. How dare you claim to have a problem with others who choose to do things differently? Sexual addiction is a term reserved for those who are possessed by the neverending desire for sex. People who want to shift positions, or role-play, or engage in any sorts of other difference in the bedroom (or on the kitchen table) aren't addicts. Your misunderstanding of addiction is unbelievable. Finally, when you say gays, you mean men, right? Because lesbians are more monogamous than straights, and I somehow doubt that you're suggesting that Christians couples look toward lesbians to figure out how to bring the divorce rate down. Oh, and gays aren't broken. There is simply no evidence to support this.

Because sometimes my girlfriend climbs on top, we're "immoral and twisted?" I never said that at all – why do you insist on putting such words in my mouth. Now, if your wife wants it in the cornhole, I'd say you were twisted. But that's just my opinion, and I have no intention of criminalizing it, and I sure hope you don't want to make a law to teach my kids in sex ed that it's a perfectly acceptable practice. Got it? Government should remain neutral on deviant practices. I like the word deviant. ;)

Unbelievable. Your refusal to tolerate those different from you is totally unbelievable. What the hell are you talking about? Can't I disagree with you without you saying I am intolerant? Man, you have liberal fever on the brain. I have no intention of going to Washington to make sure that those who feel differently than me on matters of personal choice can't do what they want. That's just YOU being P A R A N O I D.

Sexual addiction is a term reserved for those who are possessed by the neverending desire for sex. People who want to shift positions, or role-play, or engage in any sorts of other difference in the bedroom (or on the kitchen table) aren't addicts. Your misunderstanding of addiction is unbelievable. Your misreading of what I wrote is unbelievable. I again, said no such thing. But many who practice sexual deviance probably are addicts, or at risk. Porn, just like crack, is addictive. But maybe someone should test that theory.

Like many aspects of human behavior, homosexuality probably emerges from a variety of genetic and environmental factors. The way you weight these factors affects your belief. For example, Dr. Throckmorton believes has said it is 40% biological while other ex-gay therapists say no biological predisposition exists. Of course, such therapy is generally rejected by most mental health professionals and their organisations. Considering the other debates, I guess conservative Christians are used to being the minority opinion in scientific matters these days. Personally, I think the range of individual variance limits our ability to pin down any exact measure. There are probably individuals who have a strong predisposition from birth while others could vary.

For the sake of clarifying your own thoughts for you Seeker, here is the post I was responding to:I didn't say that they were. While all may be engaging in immoral or twisted practices… That's where you say that people have sex differently than you do are twisted and immoral.…the main point is that there are all kinds of sexual addicts… And that's where you say that they're addicts.…and despite complaints to the contrary, gays are much more promiscuous than the already promiscous heteros And here's where you start to suggest that gays who have more sex than straight must be addictsso it stands to reason that they may have a bigger problem with sexual addiction. But that's just an assumption. The problem certainly is universal. And here's where you finish your argument. So, revisit your FOUR posts, and try again. You said every last thing that I accused you of.

The best solution here is that everybody should stay out of everyone else's sex life. That includes using the gov't to force one's sexual hang-ups on other people. If you want to consider certain sex acts immoral or sinful, go right ahead, just don't presume to force me to share your taste. If you don't want to view porn, don't, but don't try to keep me from viewing porn. And, your kids are your own responsibility, not mine. If you don't want them hearing/seeing/learning about reality, lock them up at home and send them to christianist schools which will teach them your superstitions (like creationism and anti-gay dogmas). Live and let live I say.

That includes using the gov't to force one's sexual hang-ups on other people. If you want to consider certain sex acts immoral or sinful, go right ahead, just don't presume to force me to share your taste. OK, and if you consider such questionable activities OK, don't presume to force me to share your taste by legislating either. That's what I am pushing for. Legislative neutrality. Neither condone nor condemn.

Personally? I am rather libertarian on such issues, so I would probably just get the government to provide basic contractual guarantees. That is unlikely to happen, however, so I would be for an equal contract for same-sex couples. The word marriage is unimportant to me personally, as a rose by any other name is a rose. I am divided on polygamy as there are good arguements on both sides. Adultery is a violation of the agreement, provides a reason for dissolution, etc.

I agree. The gov't should stay out of defining marriage. Let all and sundry enter into contractual obligations which currently fall under the apellation "marriage." Let the various religions define marriage as they will, and let the secular enter into secular marriage as they will. Thus, christianists will not be offended (because they can define marriage among themselves), and secularists will, likewise, also be unoffended. It's time to recognize that certain organized groups (ie, "religions") don't get to define how the rest of us live. Let the gov't have an all-encomposing civil union law, and let the various religions define for their members "marriage." Thus, all will be satisfied. Those who cannot live without imposing their superstitions on the rest of us can go f*ck themselves.

Interesting point. Married couples don't get any tax breaks, and until recently, they actually paid more (the "marriage penalty"). The only rights they really have are a simplified legal inheritance, correct?

Inheritance is a big one, though not only one by any means. You can arrange to inherit your partner's estate, but you do not get the tax breaks of a family member like a married spouse would. Social security benefits would be another area. Some rights, such as hospital visitation, can be given through private agreements, but marriage provides less legal ground for challenges. Civil marriage comes with a significant set of legal and financial rights/responsibilities.

I wish you’d stop bringing up polygamy. The only people who are genuinely interested in polygamy, via some sort of nationwide movement, are super-conservative Mormons, who voted for Bush, and who are protected by Utah’s arch-conservative government. But regardless, the solution for our country is for the government to do with away with the definition of marriage, and leave such things to churches. Meanwhile, if Sally and Billy Christian (or Gay, or Mormon), want legal recongition, they can be joined into a legalized civil relationship, or whatever the term might be. Then the Christians can continue to discriminate, but do so only at their church doors.